Absence of Evidence = Evidence?

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Really? What truth exactly? That mankind was cursed by God? That two people caused all other people to be "born in sin"? The "truth" of that story is entirely subjective. Personally, I see no truth in it whatsoever.

I suggest you read "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell. It is a very good read about mythology and what a myth is to many cultures around the world. It has many references to the story of Adam and Eve and other creation stories from around the world. "Hero With a Thousand Faces" is also good, also by Mr. Campbell.

 

[cottage]

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Remember that you said originally: ‘whatever we believe is true: What I think you are saying now is if we believe that x is true then it is true that we believe x is true. But that is just a meaningless tautology, which bears no relation to a justified true belief, ie whether x is in fact actually true.]


Willamena:
I am saying the same thing I have said all along: we believe things because they are true. If we believe them, it's because they are true.

Cottage:
You mean we often believe things as if they were true. Aristotle believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and justified that belief with his cosmological theory. His theory was wrong and his belief was therefore demonstrated to be false. Many people believe that the Great Wall of China is the only object on earth to be seen from space. In fact the belief is false, because the evidence shows it can only be seen from a couple of hundred miles up.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
What I am saying is that if the belief (that x) is not justified then the belief (tha x) is not a true belief.]




Willamena:
There is inherent in this example a belief stated (that "x can be justified"). If x is or is not justified, then the belief that x is or is not justified is a belief in something true. Right? So for this person who believes this, their belief that x is or is not justified is justified. What justifies their belief? I say it is the truth they see that does that.

Cottage:
You are only speaking of justifying a belief to yourself, not demonstrating an evident truth. Yet if someone on this forum said they believed Washington is in Virginia you would correctly put them right on the matter.


Willamena:
It is the truth that the person who believes "Elvis is alive" sees that justifies his belief, be it a literal or nonliteral understanding. (This is aside from the people who will joke, or make a claim and call it "belief" even though there is no actual belief.)

Cottage:
Well of course it is true that a person believes x they believe the belief justified! It goes without saying whatever we believe we believe to be justified, because that’s why we believe it! But our believing a thing doesn’t make it true or factual. A justified true belief is where we believe a thing to be true and it is true. If you believe that white races are superior, you will give reasons for that belief, thereby justifying it to yourself. But there is no evidence that informs us that white races are superior and therefore the belief is not justified as true.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
until it's been justified for the believer, how can the believer believe that? It must be known and true for the believer for belief to follow.]

[I’m sorry I'm not getting the sense of what it is you’re saying here. Please would you provide some examples.]


Willamena:
You believe Elvis is dead. Someone else may have reason to believe Elvis is alive. All the witness testimonies and paper documents in the world may or may not stack up to that, for them. If you were privy to that information, it could change your mind, and hence your belief, and if they were privy to other information it could change their mind, and hence their belief.
We believe in what is true, and we believe it because it is true. And the world is made of information.

Cottage:
You are not seeing the point here, even though you’ve just alluded to it.

You are saying that ‘Elvis is dead’ is false belief if someone somewhere thinks he is alive. But that’s incorrect. ‘Elvis is dead’ is a true belief because it is justified. If the contrary position were to be demonstrated as fact, that Elvis is alive, then that would be the justified true belief.

 

[cottage]

Sojourner:
Actually, sometimes it doesn't make sense. Sometimes, that's how we know it's a spiritual experience: simply by the sheer transcendence of it. some of us are content to not understand it. Certainly the disciples didn't understand the experience of the Transfiguration. Certainly the crowd didn't understand the experience of Pentecost. And when they tried to "look for reasons that might confirm of justify what it is [they wanted] to believe," it did not, in fact, become "true for [them]." They only became confused as to what really happened.
Using the example of Scrooge and Marley is off-track. using the scene with the Ghost of Xmas Future would be better. In the first instance, Scrooge saw a ghost -- which well might be hallucination. But later, at his grave, he had a full-blown spiritual experience -- he knew it to be true, even though he didn't want to believe it at all. Note that he didn't try to explain it, or have it make sense to him. He merely embraced it and was changed (as were the folks in the Biblical examples above).

That's why I say that, unless you've had such a life-altering experience, you're in no position to question its validity. The "proof," (if you wnat such) is found in the change that often occurs in the person having the experience. Madmen hearing voices telling them to kill are not changed by that experience. But neither are devout men, who experience the coming of Spirit, merely drunkards.

Cottage:
In the past I’ve had exchanges with spiritualists who’ve said the self-same thing (while in all cases never recounting their experiences). But be assured of this: I do not for a second dismiss life-altering experiences, especially as I’ve had several of my own, being brought back from the brink of death on one occasion. And yet in none of my experiences did I see the need for supernatural intervention or evidence of a deity’s communication. And of course the experienced phenomena, in whatever form, can be easily subsumed into any prior belief. Had I an existing belief in a deity then doubtless that’s where I would have attributed the source of my experiences.

I’ve argued that if God caused me to believe in him then that would be sufficient proof for me, and of course I must allow the same terms for you. In both cases there is a problem, though, with this epistemological theory.

Protagoras’ relativist theory of knowledge also supposed that whatever an individual believed was true for him or her. But Socrates quickly put this idea to bed by pointing out that the individual has to understand what it is to make perceptual mistakes. The key word there is ‘understand’. Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is?

And yet, notwithstanding Socrates devastating observation, I still maintain that my criterion of proof in the case of God is valid. If God caused me to believe in him then Socrates’ objections would not count, as my perceptions in the matter would be contingent upon God. But even in allowing a subjective knowledge of God it still remains the case that ‘God does not exist’ implies no contradiction. 'God' is a belief, not a truth.

 

[sojourner]

Precisely. It has no validity for me - unless, of course, that you can show otherwise.

It's not my job to show it's validity for you. Evangelism does not include forcing medicine down one's throat, no matter what the fundigelicals tell you.

Or, unless someone is claiming it has validity for someone other than themselves, i.e., being an insufferable busybody.

And those folks are insufferable busybodies. But so are those who deign to tell me that my experiences are not "real" because "I can't prove that they are."

 

[sojourner]

Really? What truth exactly? That mankind was cursed by God? That two people caused all other people to be "born in sin"? The "truth" of that story is entirely subjective. Personally, I see no truth in it whatsoever.

Humanity wasn't "cursed by God." Humanity tries to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. Wisdom, in this case represented by the serpent, aids in the blurring of that distinction. In other words, we get "too big for our britches."
Take that however you want to. yes, the truth (as with all truth) is subjective, because the way in which one sees that truth -- and the meaning it carries for the individual -- depends upon one's perspective.

 

[Cobblestones]

Yes, the truth (as with all truth) is subjective, because the way in which one sees that truth -- and the meaning it carries for the individual -- depends upon one's perspective.

Then how can it be called THE truth? If it does not hold the same meaning for each person then why call it a truth at all? A brick wall is solid at all times for all people. No exceptions. It's not solid to one person, liquid to another and gas to a third.

I get the feeling that though we are both using English words that we are not really speaking the same language.

 

[Cobblestones]

Humanity wasn't "cursed by God."

Lots of people and Scriptures disagree with that statement.

 

[sojourner]

Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is?

Not true. One can "know" without particularly being able to organize that knowledge into cognitive thought. A newborn knows its mother, but cannot understand that relationship in a cognitive way.

'God' is a belief, not a truth.

Wrong. God is truth.

You're still predicating God upon what can be understood about God. Since we cannot understand God fully, that creates a convenient straw man for you to simply knock down. You've got to challenge yourself more deeply. "God" isn't limited to a certain system of mythology. The mythology (as in the Genesis story) presents a certain perspective on an understanding of God, but it does not present either an absolute, nor a comprehensive perspective. It presents a particular mythological perspective. Science presents a particular perspective. The arts present a particular perspective. Logic presents a particular perspective. None of these is an absoloute, comprehensive perspective.

You're confusing the mythological construct with the substance. Don't do that.

 

[sojourner]

Then how can it be called THE truth? If it does not hold the same meaning for each person then why call it a truth at all? A brick wall is solid at all times for all people. No exceptions. It's not solid to one person, liquid to another and gas to a third.

I get the feeling that though we are both using English words that we are not really speaking the same language.

You forgot to read the second part of the post. To one person, the truth of that solidness is a security from danger. To another, the truth of that solidness is a prison. One person may say, "Walls = security." Another may say, "Walls = oppression." Which is right? Which is "the truth?" Either -- or both! Depending upon your point of view.

 

[sojourner]

Lots of people and Scriptures disagree with that statement.

The "curse" of toiling for food and pain in child birth wasn't the main action of God in the story. These things are literary devices, used here to show a greater action of God.

 

[Willamena]

You mean we often believe things as if they were true. Aristotle believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and justified that belief with his cosmological theory. His theory was wrong and his belief was therefore demonstrated to be false. Many people believe that the Great Wall of China is the only object on earth to be seen from space. In fact the belief is false, because the evidence shows it can only be seen from a couple of hundred miles up.

Yes: as I said before, truth is as it appears --to each of us, and in each moment of time. Aristotle believed in his model because, for him, it was true. His model was not "wrong" --it worked, and it still does. It was replaced by a more elaborate model that included more information, but that doesn't make it wrong.

People believe what is true based on the information available because they don't have any other information. To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.

You are only speaking of justifying a belief to yourself, not demonstrating an evident truth.

"Evident" means "what you can see."

Yet if someone on this forum said they believed Washington is in Virginia you would correctly put them right on the matter.

As I'm putting you right on this matter?

Yes, but people use the word "believe" in a lot of loose contexts. If pressed, I could bet they would clarify that their "belief" is a best guess or some such.

Well of course it is true that a person believes x they believe the belief justified!

We believe things because they are true.

A justified true belief is where we believe a thing to be true and it is true.

Now (for me) we truly are going in circles, as I've returned to where we began this discussion. We believe things because they are true. We, like Aristotle, cannot believe things if they aren't true. Is it true that Aristotle's model was appropriate and useful in his era? Yes. Is it true we have more appropriate and useful models today? Yes.

Truth is as truth does.

But there is no evidence that informs us that white races are superior and therefore the belief is not justified as true.

There's more than one "white race"? If someone believes that the "white race" is superior, they likely have evidence (something evident to them) that has pointed them in this direction and convinced them of the truth of superiority. To say that there is "no evidence" means, to me, that you have either qualified evidence, disqualified evidence, or are not aware of the evidence. It is extremely unlikely that there exists something to believe in, belief in (the truth of) that thing, and no evidence of it.

Amusingly, this is how many see "God".

You are not seeing the point here, even though you’ve just alluded to it.

You are saying that ‘Elvis is dead’ is false belief if someone somewhere thinks he is alive. But that’s incorrect. ‘Elvis is dead’ is a true belief because it is justified. If the contrary position were to be demonstrated as fact, that Elvis is alive, then that would be the justified true belief.

I don't believe in the concept of "false belief," personally, especially in the manner that you use that phrase. I never denied anyone's belief in what I said. I simply point out that, for them, they wouldn't not believe it unless it was true. (Similarly, if they claim it's not really true, we know they never really believed.)

I'm not ignorant that you are casting "truth" in a light often referred as "the objective" (although that image is misleading). Even for the person for whom Elvis lives, either literally or nonliterally, there is belief in something because it is true.

 

[cottage]

[Quote:
Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is? ]


Sojourner:
Not true. One can "know" without particularly being able to organize that knowledge into cognitive thought. A newborn knows its mother, but cannot understand that relationship in a cognitive way.

Cottage
You have the argument the wrong way about. I’m saying if you can’t know that a thing is then it follows that it cannot be understood. Back to Socrates, who said you have to understand what a perceptual mistake is before you can say you are not mistaken in your perceptions.


[Quote:
'God' is a belief, not a truth. ]


Sojourner;
Wrong. God is truth.

Cottage:
Okay. So what is it then, that is true or the ‘truth?’



Sojourner:
You're still predicating God upon what can be understood about God. Since we cannot understand God fully, that creates a convenient straw man for you to simply knock down

Cottage

Well, that’s a very strange understanding of a straw man argument. In case you hadn’t realised, I’m using your own argument against you.

Sojourner:
You've got to challenge yourself more deeply. "God" isn't limited to a certain system of mythology. The mythology (as in the Genesis story) presents a certain perspective on an understanding of God, but it does not present either an absolute, nor a comprehensive perspective. It presents a particular mythological perspective. Science presents a particular perspective. The arts present a particular perspective. Logic presents a particular perspective. None of these is an absoloute, comprehensive perspective. You're confusing the mythological construct with the substance. Don't do that.


Cottage:
I’m afraid you’re not getting me. I’m not targeting any particular belief system. As a sceptic I simply respond to what people say, their claims and explanations, on the reasonable basis that it has to make sense.

 

[cottage]

Originally Posted by cottage
You mean we often believe things as if they were true. Aristotle believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and justified that belief with his cosmological theory. His theory was wrong and his belief was therefore demonstrated to be false


Willamena:
Yes: as I said before, truth is as it appears --to each of us, and in each moment of time. Aristotle believed in his model because, for him, it was true. His model was not "wrong" --it worked, and it still does. It was replaced by a more elaborate model that included more information, but that doesn't make it wrong. People believe what is true based on the information available because they don't have any other information. To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.

Cottage
To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood as unkind and unfair is the same as saying it is unfair and unkind to blame Hitler for believing in his Final Solution. Blame has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. Aristotle’s model was wrong, and it was wrong because as you say yourself it was a falsehood, and treating him unkindly can’t alter that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
You are only speaking of justifying a belief to yourself, not demonstrating an evident truth.




Willamena:
"Evident" means "what you can see."

Cottage:
Thank you. But I know what ‘evident’ means. I’m talking about what is true, not what is merely perceived or thought by an individual. If someone said all trees have their roots in the air and their leaves underground, you would explain that, no, in fact, it is the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Yet if someone on this forum said they believed Washington is in Virginia you would correctly put them right on the matter.


Willamena:
As I'm putting you right on this matter?

Yes, but people use the word "believe" in a lot of loose contexts. If pressed, I could bet they would clarify that their "belief" is a best guess or some such.

Cottage:
Now you’re re-defining your own argument when it suits you. Either ‘whatever we believe is true’ or it is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Well of course it is true that a person believes x they believe the belief justified!




Willamena:
We believe things because they are true.

Cottage:
Washington is in Virginia!


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
A justified true belief is where we believe a thing to be true and it is true.


Willamena:
Now (for me) we truly are going in circles, as I've returned to where we began this discussion. We believe things because they are true. We, like Aristotle, cannot believe things if they aren't true. Is it true that Aristotle's model was appropriate and useful in his era? Yes. Is it true we have more appropriate and useful models today? Yes.
Cottage:
This discussion is becoming too weird. Aristotle believed something that was false, that the sun revolves around the earth. And we burnt witches in the seventeenth century, not because it was ‘appropriate’ and ‘useful’ but because of outlandish and false beliefs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
But there is no evidence that informs us that white races are superior and therefore the belief is not justified as true.


Willamena:
There's more than one "white race"? If someone believes that the "white race" is superior, they likely have evidence (something evident to them) that has pointed them in this direction and convinced them of the truth of superiority. To say that there is "no evidence" means, to me, that you have either qualified evidence, disqualified evidence, or are not aware of the evidence. It is extremely unlikely that there exists something to believe in, belief in (the truth of) that thing, and no evidence of it.
Cottage:
The argument I’ve laid out is that some believe whites are superior to blacks. But it is for those who make the allegation to support it with evidence to show proof of what they claim. They haven’t done so and so therefore there is none evident.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
You are not seeing the point here, even though you’ve just alluded to it.

You are saying that ‘Elvis is dead’ is false belief if someone somewhere thinks he is alive. But that’s incorrect. ‘Elvis is dead’ is a true belief because it is justified. If the contrary position were to be demonstrated as fact, that Elvis is alive, then that would be the justified true belief.



Willamena:
I don't believe in the concept of "false belief," personally, especially in the manner that you use that phrase. I never denied anyone's belief in what I said. I simply point out that, for them, they wouldn't not believe it unless it was true. (Similarly, if they claim it's not really true, we know they never really believed.)

Cottage
This isn’t about someone absurdly believing in something false. Of course they believe that what they think or say is true, otherwise they wouldn’t think it or say it. But believing x to be true doesn’t make x true. Washington isn’t in Virginia


Willamena:
I'm not ignorant that you are casting "truth" in a light often referred as "the objective" (although that image is misleading). Even for the person for whom Elvis lives, either literally or nonliterally, there is belief in something because it is true.

Cottage:
You keep saying that but without giving any examples. If Elvis is not dead, then what is true of his being alive? But to say, for example, that Elvis lives on in the memory or Elvis lives on spiritually is not the argument. For that is simply to say Elvis is dead but he lives on spiritually and in our memories, which is not at all controversial.

 

[Willamena]

Aristotle’s model was wrong, and it was wrong because as you say yourself it was a falsehood

But I didn't say that.

I’m talking about what is true, not what is merely perceived or thought by an individual. ...If someone said all trees have their roots in the air and their leaves underground, you would explain that, no, in fact, it is the other way around.

Yes, I would explain it how I perceive it, because that's what's here in my thoughts.

Do you distinguish between knowing something is true, and hence believing it, and believing something is true, and hence leaving the certainty of knowing up in the air? The first part of the sentence asserts the same thing as the second, but in the second "belief" lends the possibility of something being untrue only because we've downplayed and downgraded what exists in 'thought' in relation to a conceived 'real world' that thought is not allowed to intrude on. The distinction is that certainty. But in fact, it's only if you beileve in that certainty that knowledge is true.

A Catch-22.

We believe things because they are true.

Washington is in Virginia!

I dare you to believe it.

Aristotle believed something that was false,

If it were false, he would have disbelieved it.

...it is for those who make the allegation to support it with evidence to show proof of what they claim. They haven’t done so and so therefore there is none evident.

If they care about you believing them, sure.

believing x to be true doesn’t make x true. Washington isn’t in Virginia

Again, I never asserted the first, and I dared you to believe the second isn't so. I know you won't, because you've let on that for you it is certainly false.

If Elvis is not dead, then what is true of his being alive?

Would someone who believes one way or the other not ask the same question?

Let me ask you this: if someone believes Elvis is dead, and another believes Elvis is alive, and they both believe something that is true... does that change the world? Would the world be any different if it were true that they both believe something true?

The question speaks to your basic, inherent model. We each have modeled the cosmos. From our first thoughts we've assembled its characteristics, its behaviors, its rules and its nature. And no two models are quite the same. Does the world change? Or does the question simply conflict with the model you've built?

 

[sojourner]

You have the argument the wrong way about. I’m saying if you can’t know that a thing is then it follows that it cannot be understood.

But that's not what you said. What you said was:

Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is?

A baby doesn't understand "Mother." But a baby knows who Mother is. Even if s/he can't say it.

Okay. So what is it then, that is true or the ‘truth?’

God.

Well, that’s a very strange understanding of a straw man argument.

As I understand the straw man, you set up a blatantly false argument, present it as the truth, and then proceed to knock it down. Since it is not true that we can understand God fully, to try to dismiss God by saying "We can't understand God, therefore God must not exist" is a straw man.

I’m afraid you’re not getting me. I’m not targeting any particular belief system. As a sceptic I simply respond to what people say, their claims and explanations, on the reasonable basis that it has to make sense.

Most people present God from the basis of the mythology about God, supplanting the myth for the substance. The myth -- being myth -- doesn't make sense "in reality." You are attacking the myth. I'm saying that the myth is one convenient way of talking about God, but is not God. God cannot be "talked about" in any way other than myth. It's inconvenient to what you want to accomplish, but God doesn't exist for Cottage's convenience.

 

[cottage]

[Quote:
You have the argument the wrong way about. I’m saying if you can’t know that a thing is then it follows that it cannot be understood.]


Sojourner: But that's not what you said. What you said was:

[Quote:
Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is?]


Cottage:
Er, excuse me! I was referring to Socrates’ objection. I said: ‘‘The key word there is ‘understand’’, ie that understanding is the same as knowing: for we have to understand what a perceptual mistake is in order to know that what we claim to know is true. Here is the passage in full:
“Protagoras’ relativist theory of knowledge also supposed that whatever an individual believed was true for him or her. But Socrates quickly put this idea to bed by pointing out that the individual has to understand what it is to make perceptual mistakes. The key word there is ‘understand’. Not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what we’re experiencing then how can we expect to say what it is?”

Sojourner:
A baby doesn't understand "Mother." But a baby knows who Mother is. Even if s/he can't say it.

Cottage:
Newborns don’t speak, and ‘Mother’ is just the object the child identifies for its immediate comfort and needs, an innate determination. The child’s brain doesn’t recognise any ontological or causal properties.


[Quote:
Okay. So what is it then, that is true or the ‘truth?’ ]


Sojourner: God.

Cottage: So now kindly explain how or why it is true or the ‘truth’?

[Quote:
Well, that’s a very strange understanding of a straw man argument.]


Sojourner;
As I understand the straw man, you set up a blatantly false argument, present it as the truth, and then proceed to knock it down. Since it is not true that we can understand God fully, to try to dismiss God by saying "We can't understand God, therefore God must not exist" is a straw man.

Cottage:
Complete rubbish! I have said no such thing. I have never, ever said: "We can't understand God, therefore God must not exist." That is a straw man argument. You know full well that I maintain that God is logically possible, and not being able to understand God does not make him logically impossible. So, my argument isn’t that God cannot be understood, but that you don’t know anything about God from your subjective experiences. In other words, I question the nature, but not the existence, of so-called revealed knowledge. More on this down the page.

[Quote:
I’m afraid you’re not getting me. I’m not targeting any particular belief system. As a sceptic I simply respond to what people say, their claims and explanations, on the reasonable basis that it has to make sense.]


Sojourner:
Most people present God from the basis of the mythology about God, supplanting the myth for the substance. The myth -- being myth -- doesn't make sense "in reality." You are attacking the myth. I'm saying that the myth is one convenient way of talking about God, but is not God. God cannot be "talked about" in any way other than myth. It's inconvenient to what you want to accomplish, but God doesn't exist for Cottage's convenience.

Cottage:
The mythology and the metaphysics are largely irrelevant to me, and so I don’t concern myself with such things. But I read and respond to what you and others say, and it is my view that one or more of the following is the case: you don’t know what you’ve experienced; you interpret the experience as mystical; or there is no experience as such but you envision something in your mind as a depiction which fits with your beliefs. Of course I may be utterly wrong in this, as far as particular individuals are concerned. But as some theists have agreed with me on that last point I am encouraged to think the idea has merit. I don’t profess to be able to look into minds; I can only go by what people say.

________________

 

[cottage]

[Originally Posted by cottage
Aristotle’s model was wrong, and it was wrong because as you say yourself it was a falsehood]


Willamena:
But I didn't say that.

Cottage:
Forgive me, but that’s exactly how it reads:
‘To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.’

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
I’m talking about what is true, not what is merely perceived or thought by an individual. ...If someone said all trees have their roots in the air and their leaves underground, you would explain that, no, in fact, it is the other way around.]


Willamena:
Yes, I would explain it how I perceive it, because that's what's here in my thoughts.

Cottage: That’s right. They are perfectly reasonable thoughts, which you share with your fellows. But had I argued to the contrary you would not have allowed that whatever I believe is true. You would argue from the world of experience, just as you’ve done on other matters.

Willamena:
Do you distinguish between knowing something is true, and hence believing it, and believing something is true, and hence leaving the certainty of knowing up in the air? The first sentence asserts the same thing as the second, but in the second belief lends the possibility of something being untrue only because we've downplayed and downgraded what exists in 'thought' in relation to a conceived 'real world' that thought is not allowed to intrude on. The distinction is that certainty. But in fact, it's only if you beileve in that certainty that knowledge is true.

A Catch-22.

Cottage:
What catch 22? The difference is simply that the first belief is justified. The second example isn’t justified, although that in no way implies that the belief is false. As to your last sentence let me just reply that Washington is not in Virginia, a fact upon which we both agree. I also believe – and don’t ask me how I know this, perhaps I’m a mystic – that you also agree that Barack Obama is the US President, that wasps are insects, and that if something is coloured all red it cannot be all blue at the same time. Two things there that allow us to make sense of the world, matters of fact and logic, which, like the rest of us, I suspect you refer to and apply every single day of your life.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
We believe things because they are true.
Washington is in Virginia!]


Willamena: I dare you to believe it.

Cottage: Well exactly!

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Aristotle believed something that was false,]


Willamena: If it were false, he would have disbelieved it.

Cottage: He surely would have, had he known it to be such. But he believed the universe to be earth-centric, and his belief was proved false and therefore untrue.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
...it is for those who make the allegation to support it with evidence to show proof of what they claim. They haven’t done so and so therefore there is none evident.]


Willamena: If they care about you believing them, sure.

Cottage: Which they do, otherwise they wouldn’t make the claim.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
believing x to be true doesn’t make x true. Washington isn’t in Virginia]


Willamena:
Again, I never asserted the first, and I dare you to believe the second. I know you won't, because you've let on that for you it is certainly false.

Cottage: I’ve never said it is, and I’ve never claimed that you did either.
If ‘whatever we believe is true’ then ‘Washington is in Virginia’ is an allowable true belief – at least according to you.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
If Elvis is not dead, then what is true of his being alive?]


Willamena: Would someone who believes one way or the other not ask the same question?


Cottage: What? I should certainly hope so!


Willamena:

Let me ask you this: if someone believes Elvis is dead, and another believes Elvis is alive, and they both believe something that is true... does that change the world? Would the world be any different if it were true that they both believe something true?


Cottage:
The world would be chaotic. But actually it’s a nonsense statement because a thing cannot be both true and false.


Willamena:

The question speaks to your basic, inherent model. We each have modeled the cosmos. From our first thoughts we've assembled its characteristics, its behaviors, its rules and its nature. And no two models are quite the same. Does the world change? Or does the question simply conflict with the model you've built?

Cottage:

I’m sorry but I really couldn’t disagree more with such a relativistic view. It is the fact we can concur and share a common experience that allows us all to bump along together in this world as well as we do. I’m certainly no dogmatic materialist, but to say ‘whatever we believe is true’ relates only to a world sophistry and illusion.

 

[Willamena]

Forgive me, but that’s exactly how it reads:
‘To blame Aristotle for believing a falsehood is unfair, unkind and inaccurate.’

I was saying in that sentence that it is (allegedly) a "falsehood" to you. Not me.

But had I argued to the contrary you would not have allowed that whatever I believe is true.

My response would have been identical, though.

What catch 22? The difference is simply that the first belief is justified. The second example isn’t justified, although that in no way implies that the belief is false.

Both are the same belief. The belief is justified --only the statement/perspective changes.

He surely would have, had he known it to be such. But he believed the universe to be earth-centric, and his belief was proved false and therefore untrue.

It's not untrue, though. It's just perspective-dependent. Consider it to be 'lacking information' if you like. His model of the cosmos worked then, and it still does just as well today as it did then.

Which they do, otherwise they wouldn’t make the claim.

Of course. That's evident ...to you.

Let me ask you this: if someone believes Elvis is dead, and another believes Elvis is alive, and they both believe something that is true... does that change the world? Would the world be any different if it were true that they both believe something true?

The world would be chaotic. But actually it’s a nonsense statement because a thing cannot be both true and false.


The question speaks to your basic, inherent model. We each have modeled the cosmos. From our first thoughts we've assembled its characteristics, its behaviors, its rules and its nature. And no two models are quite the same. Does the world change? Or does the question simply conflict with the model you've built?

I’m sorry but I really couldn’t disagree more with such a relativistic view. It is the fact we can concur and share a common experience that allows us all to bump along together in this world as well as we do. I’m certainly no dogmatic materialist, but to say ‘whatever we believe is true’ relates only to a world sophistry and illusion.

I didn't say "whatever we believe is true" i.e. alters the world. It's just your model that translates it as such.

 

[Cobblestones]

God cannot be "talked about" in any way other than myth.

If God cannot be discussed except via myth then how is it that God is not a myth?

Your arguments sound like a rebuttal to a claim that "penguins don't do calculus." Your rebuttal that there is indeed a mystic penguin that you have experienced and is in fact "more real" than any arctic flightless land fowl that can be observed in this physical realm (and "if you haven't experienced the Mystic Penguin then you cannot say whether it exists or not") and that this Mystic Penguin can perform calculus more accurately and speedily than any human or computer does not make the Mystic Penguin real. (Or helpful for that matter since its calculations are meaningless unless we in the physical realm can get them from it.)

 

[Willamena]

If God cannot be discussed except via myth then how is it that God is not a myth?

The same way that God is not a movie, or a book, or a parable, or an analogy, or a spoken phrase, or a word, or a thought.